However, Carin Meier’s Living Clojure is excellent in many ways. Get it from O’Reilly (we’re an affiliate):

My little tutorial started with part zero, in which I lamented how functional programming is made to appear unlearnable by mere mortals, and it kind of snowballed from there. Hope you like it and/or find it useful!

In the previous parts of “Functional programming without feeling stupid” we have slowly been building ucdump, a utility program for listing the Unicode codepoints and character names of characters in a string. In actual use, the string will be read from a UTF-8 encoded text file.

We don’t know yet how to read a text file in Clojure (well, you may know, but I only have a foggy idea), so we have been working with a single string. This is what we have so far:

Welcome to the third installment of “Functional programming without feeling stupid”! I originally started to describe my own learnings about FP in general, and Clojure in particular, and soon found myself writing a kind of Clojure tutorial or introduction. It may not be as comprehensive as others out there, and I still don’t think of it as a tutorial — it’s more like a description of a process, and the documented evolution of a tool.

I wanted to use Clojure “in anger”, and found out that I was learning new and interesting stuff quickly. I wanted to share what I’ve learned in the hope that others may find it useful.

Some of the stuff I have done and described here might not be the most optimal, but I see nothing obviously wrong with my approach. Maybe you do; if that is the case, tell me about it in the comments, or contact me otherwise. But please be nice and constructive, because…

…in Part 0 I wrote about how some people may feel put off by the air of “smarter than thou” that sometimes floats around functional programming. I’m hoping to present the subject in a friendly way, because much of the techniques are not obvious to someone (like me) conditioned with a couple of decades of imperative, object-oriented programming. Not nearly as funny as Learn You a Haskell For Great Good, and not as zany as Clojure for the Brave and True — just friendly, and hopefully lucid.

In Part 1 we played around with the Clojure REPL, and in Part 2 we started making definitions and actually got some useful results. In this third part we’re going to take a look at Clojure functions and how to use them, and create our own — because that’s what functional programming is all about.

In this installment of “Functional programming without feeling stupid” I would like to show you how to define things in Clojure. Values and function applications are all well and good, but if we can’t give them symbolic names, we need to keep repeating them over and over.

Before we start naming things, let’s have a look at how Clojure integrates with Java. I’m assuming you are still in the REPL, or have started it again with lein repl.

Track 1: “If anyone should ask / We are mated”

As it happens, Clojure’s core library is lean and focused on manipulating the data structures of the language, so many things are deferred to the underlying Java machinery as a rule. For example, mathematical computation is typically done using the static methods in the java.lang.Math class:

user=> (java.lang.Math/sqrt 5.0)
2.23606797749979

As you can see, this is a function application like we have already seen in Part 1, but this time the function we are using is the sqrt static method in the java.lang.Math class.

Java 7 acquired Unicode character names, and they are accessed through
the getName method in the java.lang.Character class. This is no mean feat, since there are over 110,000 characters in the Unicode standard, and each of them has a name (although some of them are algorithmically generated). To find out the canonical character name of a Unicode character, such as the euro currency symbol, you would use the getName static method:

Hey, what’s wrong? Well, if you look up the documentation of java.lang.Character.getName, you will find out that it takes an int value as an argument, not a character. You can actually do this check from inside the REPL:

In my recent post Functional Programming Without Feeling Stupid I took a quick look at how functional programming can be a little off-putting for the non-initiated. I promised to provide some examples of my own first steps with FP, and now I would like to present some to you.

Advocates of functional programming often refer to increased programmer productivity. At least some of that can be attributed to the REPL, or the Read-Evaluate-Print Loop. We are basically talking about an environment which accepts and parses any code you type in, and gives you a place to experiment and see results quickly. Before interpreted or semi-interpreted languages like Python, Java and JavaScript became mainstream, the typical repeating cycle in software development was Compile-Link-Execute, and debugging meant observing special output on the console. In the 1990s integrated debuggers with watches and breakpoints became the norm, but long before that Lisp-like languages already had a REPL, and Python also acquired one.

If you are thinking about getting intimate with Clojure, you will need to get to know the REPL. It is your playground, and will always be, even if you later start packaging and organizing your code.

Clojure depends on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and is actually distributed as a normal JAR file (Java ARchive), like most Java libraries are. You can start Clojure from the JAR, but you will save yourself some trouble and prepare for the future if you install Leiningen, the dependency management tool for Clojure. It is simple to install and run, and I will assume that you will follow the instructions on the Leiningen web site sooner or later. Now would be a good time.

When you’re done with the installation, you only need to say

lein repl

to start a Clojure REPL. I’m using OS X, so what I describe here was done from Terminal. You don’t need to create a project with Leiningen if you just want to play around in the REPL.

Of course, if you don’t have Java installed, you need to get it first. Refer to the Java web site of Oracle for details as necessary. Furthermore, some of the things I will describe require Java version 7 or later.

If you follow software design trends (yes, they exist), you may have noticed an increasing amount of buzz about functional programming, and particularly the Clojure language. While functional programming is hard to define, almost everyone mentions pure functions, the lack of side effects and state, and easy parallelisation. As for Clojure, it is all about (a kind of) Lisp running on the Java Virtual Machine (and .NET, and transformed to JavaScript).

I’m somewhat convinced that functional programming is at least worth knowing about and trying out, even if you don’t expect to fully convert. It has been said that learning about the functional paradigm makes you a better programmer in your current imperative language. Functional languages reduce accidental complexity, and that helps you focus.

“Whoop de doo, what does it all mean, Basil?”

If you have a background in imperative languages, you will have an interesting time if and when you start digging into functional programming, because whatever else it is, it’s different. And I’m not talking about syntax only, but most of what you do. If you need to add an item to a list, you construct a new list with the new item appended to the previous list (no, it is not as inefficient as it sounds, because there is great stuff under the hood to handle that). This is because immutability is one of the cornerstones of functional programming. If you can’t change something after it is created, there is no state to mess up. You program with values, not stateful objects.

I see I’m getting myself tricked into presenting a definition of functional programming, when that has been done better elsewhere. For pointers, see Michael Fogus’ 10 Technical Papers Every Programmer Should Read (At Least Twice), including the classic “Why Functional Programming Matters” by John Hughes. But I actually wanted to talk about something else.